Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non‐resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh

Abstract

Background: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) allows to achieve vertical ridge augmentation whether with nonresorbable membranes or resorbable membranes with Ti-mesh, but till now no studies are published comparing histological and histomorphometrical outcomes of these two procedures.Materials and Methods: Forty partially edentulous patients required vertical bone regeneration to place implants in the posterior mandible: 20 patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-PTFE); while 20 patients to group B (Collagen plus Ti-mesh).For both groups, graft material was a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and bone allograft. After 9 months, tissue biopsies were taken from augmented sites (regenerated bone ROI-1; native bone ROI-2) and undergone to histological and histomorphometric analysis. Percentages of bone tissue (B.Ar), biomaterial (Mat. Ar), and soft tissue (St.Ar) were measured; measurements of perimeters were calculated too. ROI-1 values were also compared to ROI-2 in both groups.Results: Twenty-five samples were collected and analyzed consecutively: 13 in group A and 12 in group B. The mean B.Ar, Mat.Ar, and St.Ar were 39. 7%, 8.6%, and 52.1% in group A; similar results were obtained in group B, with mean values of 42.1%, 9.6%, and 48.3%, respectively. No significant statistically differences were observed.Differences were observed between ROI-1 and ROI-2 in both group. Finally, bone structure index of ROI-1 and ROI-2 showed statistical differences. Conclusions:The preliminary results of this study suggest that GBR using nonresorbable membranes and Ti-mesh with resorbable membranes in combination with autogenous bone and bone allograft provide similar histological and histomorphometric results. K E Y W O R D Sbone augmentation, bone defects, histological analysis

Clinical and volumetric outcomes after vertical ridge augmentation using computer-aided-design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized titanium meshes: a pilot study

“…As observed in different clinical trials, not all the space under the mesh is filled by newly-formed bone but only about 90% of the planned bone volume is formed, while the rest is represented by connective tissue; for this reason, it is recommended to consider the possibility of over-contouring the mesh during the virtual planning of the bone regeneration. Finally, the pore size and net structure should be carefully considered, as they can influence blood supply and cell invasion in the space underneath the barrier device as well as the amount of newly-formed bone and its remodeling [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) with Ti‐reinforced d‐PTFE membranes or Ti meshes and collagen membranes: 1‐year results of a randomized clinical trial

“…The present study represents the part III (third outcomes: peri-implant bone and soft tissue parameters) of previous publications (part I-primary outcomes: complication rates and vertical bone gain) (part II-secondary outcomes: histological and histomorphometric parameters) (Cucchi, Sartori, et al, 2019;Cucchi, Vignudelli, et al, 2017). Consequently, 40 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either PTFE membrane (group A) or titanium mesh plus collagen membrane (group B) treatment.…”

Bone Regeneration Assessment of Polycaprolactone Membrane on Critical-Size Defects in Rat Calvaria

“…They have several advantages over non-absorbable membranes as they stabilize the wound, allow early vascularization, attract fibroblasts through chemotaxis, and are 2 of 12 semipermeable, which facilitates the transfer of nutrients. The hydrophilic properties of the membranes facilitate the surgical technique and stabilization of the graft [12][13][14][15][16].…”

“…Photomicrographs at the panoramic reconstruction of histological sections (×6.3) for the experimental groups (CG (clot group), BG(Bio-Gide ® group), and PCL(polycaprolactone group)) in all periods analyzed(7,15,30, and 60 days postoperatively). The BG and PCL groups performed better at 60 days, demonstrating the ability to close the bone defect.…”